[members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You

>> All you’ll do by increasing the costs of IPv4 is make the smaller guys
less competitive

You're not accounting the logarithmic nature of the "utility" function for
IPv4. Having 1 IPv4 is insanely more satisfying than having none compared
to 101 IPs instead of 100. We're rapidly approaching a situation where the
smaller guys would happily give $100 for an IPv4 but they just get a
straight "no".

Smaller guys just want a chance to do their web startup by getting one IPv4
from their LIR and they would happily give $100 for that. Whereas getting
to keep 16'000 IPs instead of 32'000 when you just need 100 of them would
be something a lot of legacy businesses if it cuts their bill in half from
32 grands to 16 (assuming $1/ip -- I do believe you'll see beneficial
effects kicking in at much smaller price-points).


On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Jon Morby (FidoNet) <jon at fido.net> wrote:

> The main thing holding “large” providers back from rolling out IPv6 across
> the board is cost … you’ll have to increase the effective costs of IPv4 to
> $100 per IP before you’ll be at a point where the cost savings of switching
> to IPv6 outweigh the costs of depreciating the current IPv4 capable kit and
> going through natural expansion / upgrades to kit capable of IPv6
>
> Vendors have been slow to produce kit which is IPv6 capable .. they’re
> starting to do this, but on the whole the big players have been holding off
> on the $xx million capex spend until the kit they have in place has
> depreciated sufficiently.
>
> Some of the bigger players here in the UK were almost at the point of
> rolling out kit which is v6 capable when they found that this kit also did
> CGNAT and rolling out CGN is easier / cheaper than rolling IPv6 “in the
> short term”
>
> Then you have to factor in CPE … from Broadband (and VoIP) perspective not
> all kit does IPv6 yet
>
> Rather than forcing an exponential cost increase in v4 address space, work
> to roll out IPv6 now and get a _competitive advantage_ against the big boys
> - then make hay while their accountants tell them they can’t spend money on
> the v6 kit.
>
> When they finally do we might find their land grab pricing has to
> disappear and they start to cover the costs of the new infrastructure
> they’ve had to roll out ….
>
> All you’ll do by increasing the costs of IPv4 is make the smaller guys
> less competitive and drive a few more out of business whilst the big boys
> go “oh well another 20c per user on our cost base, c’est la vie
>
> IPv4 is dead.  IPv6 is the future.  Roll out IPv6 .. push the vendors to
> provide IPv6 compatible kit … harder I know when the big boys aren’t
> pushing .. but push never the less .. if enough of us small guys push hard
> enough then we stand a chance of getting somewhere and maybe getting a
> competitive advantage over the behemoth again .. for a short while
>
> Jon
>
> On 18 Dec 2013, at 15:17, Vlad Dascalu <vladd at beetux.com> wrote:
>
> >> IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help)
> That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts based
> on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until it's equal to
> demand.
>
> Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every
> telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will encourage
> them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that higher
> price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why still being
> easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for their website or
> other critical resources.
>
> Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity.
> Vlad
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20131218/329cdccb/attachment.html>